06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (II. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SIlALCKSESSY, CoatUiMcd) Chair Mabusth opened discussion of the four parts of the application: 1. Conditional use permit request to construct chimneys 40'8" in height where 3U' is allowed. Fntzler commented that the height requirement should be conformed to Kempf pumted out the build'ng design is low and very respectful of tlic neighbors ’ views 2. Conditional use permit and variance to allow grading, filling and retaining wall construction within the (loodplam. 3. Hardcover x'anance for 438 s f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone. Chair Mabusth asked how long it would take to complete the planned restoration. Mr. O'Shaughnessy replied that It look about three (3) years to be established in his previous experience in Menominee. Wl. Chair Mabusth asked the elevation of the proposed boardwalk. .Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained the average elevation is about 2 5' and w ill be 4' wide with spacuig to allow light and precipitation to get through to the under plantings, acting more like a natural landscape than a hardcover feature Rahn pomted out that if the boardw alk is joined to the house and is not considered landscaping and is over 30" It will require railings according the MN Building Code. It was suggested the boardwalk could be stepped- down right at the house before it reaches the 0-75* setback and could follow the property's contours. Bremer stated she liked the idea of the boardwalk but could not support it. referring to prior applications for watkw'ays to the lakefront. unless it can be shown the reduced width at 4' and there actually w ill be growth underneath it. Gaflron asked the applicant if the nature of the 0-7S* zone such that it cannot be walked on due to soils and moisture. Chair Mabusth advised that boardwalks were permitted if the property owners could not get access to the lake. Rahn mdicated that an area with tall grass is not a hardship in the way that prior applications were allowed due to wet soils. He stated he did not support a landing or decking at the lakeshore. as this would be inconsistent w ith prior decisions. Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded ihat he did not know if it w as needed for access over wet soils, but it may be more an architectural feature for access through the tall grasses and to avoid ticks in the grasses. GalTron indicated that the restoration area may be a Type 1 wetland, lie acknowledged that current Code does not provide any incentives for this kind of proposed restoration and that the Planning Commission should consider discussing the issue of granting some incentives to encourage such lakeshore restorations and natural, unfertilized buffers at a future date. Mr. O’Shaughnessy added that the boardwalk and landmg would also have been convenient for hts two handicapped employees. Ms. Susan Steinwall encouraged the Planning Commission to consider their proposal for a non-impervious surface as meetuig the Code's uitent to elimmate hardcover m the 0-75' zone and the gam is tremendous w hen restonng lakeshore. She commented that the watershed distncts and many cities support natural restorations and buffers along the lakeshore. Page 26 of 40